Which sounds better to you?

[5F6-A]

Recorded two sloppy (sorry) clips changing the first preamp valve... all the settings stayed the same.
Listen to the first half and the to the the second half. Which one do you prefer? Why?
Thanks.

https://soundcloud.com/5f6-a/chords

 

[freefrog]

The first one has more gain and a "compact" mid range.

The second one has less gain and more airy mids.

I prefer sample 2. The first one is too boxy for me.

I don't know what you have used but sound 1 reflects what I personally obtain from typical short plates ECC83's. Sound 2 reminds me the tone typically obtained from the long plates 12AX7 models that I've tried... But there's exceptions so maybe I'm totally wrong.

 

[5F6-A]

Thanks for the reply....

Don't forget to vote! I'll be revealing the answers soon.

 

[Guitar Rod]

I'm not an expert on tubes, but just sound-wise I like the first half. A bit more chimey and clear. Nicer breakup. The second half seemed cloudy by comparison.

 

[5F6-A]

Bear in mind that it was played with a Strat / neck pickup.

 

[ARandall]

I am hearing the first half seemed to have more chime on top, the second half seemed more 'restricted'.

First half for mine.

 

[5F6-A]

Amp is a JTM45 style head with Greenbacks in a closed back cab.

For the first half I used a Mazda ECC83 silver plates and a Mullard ECC83 short plates in V2
The second half uses two Mullard ECC83s

 

[freefrog]

I did listen through another computer and it made me realize that the first soundcard had its EQ enabled...

Yes, the first section has a more extended high range, finally. The other one cuts the treble sooner (as did an oddball Sovtek LPS that I've tried a while back in V1 of various amps). But it doesn't change my own feeling: even if it has more chime, the first part has a straighter midrange and more gain, making it thicker but also less refined to my ears. I still prefer the softer part 2 with more complex mids. YMMV.

Amp is a JTM45 style head with Greenbacks in a closed back cab.

For the first half I used a Mazda ECC83 silver plates and a Mullard ECC83 short plates in V2
The second half uses two Mullard ECC83s

EDIT - I hadn't seen your answer. Which kind of Mullard's did you use in the second part? Short plates too? Do they look like one of those pictured in the answer 11 here?
https://www.thegearpage.net/board/index.php?threads/mullard-ecc83-knowledge-needed.175919/

 

[5F6-A]

All the Mullard ECC83s were the same type , short plates from the mid to late 70s.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v671/5F6-A/mullard2_zps7f3680f4.jpg

The Mazda sounds great too but brighter and less rich in the low end of the spectrum.
Toying with the idea of having a Mullard in V1 for the complex mid range and the Mazda in V2 to add some chime.... what do you think?

 

[freefrog]

All the Mullard ECC83s were the same type , short plates from the mid to late 70s.
The Mazda sounds great too but brighter and less rich in the low end of the spectrum.
Toying with the idea of having a Mullard in V1 for the complex mid range and the Mazda in V2 to add some chime.... what do you think?

So I was wrong to hear long plates in the part 2. LOL. It shows once again how generalizations are dangerous when it comes to guitar tones (and I should have remembered how inconsistent tubes can be).

I suppose that a lower gain is what gives to these short plates the airy mids that I use to hear in long plates models...

Regarding tubes in V1 and V2: IME, they are interactive, and this interaction tends to change according to the circuit involved. The only way to know is to try them IMHO.

Let us know which duet you prefer.

 

[bulletproof]

I like'em both....the first one with its chimey,open type thing. And the second one for the clear type warmth....Its the 2nd one for me.

 

[5F6-A]

I think I'm going to stick with having both Mullards on. I have to reduce the bass a tad and up the high and presence a notch on the amp (it was EQd to suit the Mazda-first valve arrangement). I have to agree with my pal Freefrog, the complex midrange of the old Mullards is very appealing in a Marshall-esque circuit.


Anyway, find below another clip that might help confirm your vote:
http://soundcloud.com/5f6-a/punteado

Again, first half is Mazda+Mullard and then both Mullards.

 

[korus]

So, no recording of Mullard as V1 and Mazda as V2? Have you tried them in that configuration, and is it like part 1 or more like part 2?
I voted part 2 even before I read it's a Strat neck. Freefrog is right about more complex mids. Actually treble on part 1 is too biting for a Strat neck pickup, masks mids and lows. It would be even more pronounced with more drive, like playing live.

 

[Freddy G]

I like the hotness of the first half. But I love the warmth of the second half. I'll say second half is my fav. Easy to dial in more gain if needed....not easy to dial in more warmth.

 

[5F6-A]

The amp was set at 3/10 (gain). Master volume maxed out.

 

[bulletproof]

I like the hotness of the first half. But I love the warmth of the second half. I'll say second half is my fav. Easy to dial in more gain if needed....not easy to dial in more warmth.

 

[rogue3]

I prefer the first one for the clarity.More depth to the soundstage,more to play with with your fingers.Once you turn the amp up,there will be lots of bottom end punch,but with more definition than number 2.Number 2 will mush out.imho.

 

[SlyStrat]

First. More depth and more 3D sounding.

 

[5F6-A]

Seems like the Mazda is catching up.....

 

[Guitar Rod]

Mazdas aren't usually good off the line. It's the rotary tubes. More top end power.